Dear Struts community,
We have seen a rash of what most people consider "noise" on these lists
recently, and I can't deny that I was even part of some of it (although
I hope somewhat more constructively than some). However, underlying the
"noise" I feel were a few valid points worth considering. I for one have.
What I've come away with is a proposal I would like to make. It would
represent a procedural change of sorts, or addition to be more accurate.
I ask that anyone who has a thought on it please feel free to comment,
but I ask that you try and do so constructively. It is not my intention
to start another 200-post thread that quickly devolves into name-calling
and insults.
Also, please try not to get hung up on all the details, because they are
debatable and negotiable (although I have tried to make them reasonable
to start with). The two principles described in the conclusion are what
is really important. The details of how this would work can be adjusted
to make everyone happy.
A proposal for community-based committer nominations
----------------------------------------------------
* Rationale
One of the issues that a number of people seem to have with the way
Struts has progressed is the seeming inability (or difficulty at least)
of getting "new blood" involved. There seems to be a perception by many
that there is a bit of a "closed club" mentality with regard to being
invited in as a committer and that the Struts community at large has no
say in the matter.
* Proposed Change:
First, let me make clear that this proposal does NOT change the existing
mechanism by which someone is invited to be a committer. That decision
still rests soley with the PMC. This proposal only seeks to build on
top of that mechanism. I propose that a community-based nomination
process be instituted. For the sake of discussion, a "qualified" person
is anyone that has been on the Struts Dev and/or User mailing lists for
at least 6 months and has been relatively active (say, at minimum, 2
posts per week total). Any qualified person is eligible for nomination,
or to nominate someone else. Naturally, a person could never nominate
themselves. A nomination must then be seconded by another qualified
person. At that point, a voting period of one week commences, where any
non-committer and non-PMC member, "qualified" or not, may vote (the
usual +1, 0, -1). The original nominator is responsible for tallying
the vote. A person must receive at least 60% +1's (i.e., 6 out of 10
must be +1) and no more than half of the remainder may be negative. At
the end of that one week period, the vote results will be posted to the
Dev list and a similar one week period will commence where existing
Struts team members vote for the nominee. Also note that at any point,
the nominee can decline the nomination. We wouldn't want to offer
someone up that doesn't want to job!
* Conclusion:
Once again, let me make perfectly clear that the existing PMC still
retains 100% control over who is invited to join. This proposal only
serves to introduce a mechanism by which members of the community can be
nominated and force a vote by the PMC. That is of course the first
important principle of this proposal. The other important principle is
taking the will of the community into account. By having the PMC not
vote until AFTER the community has voted, the "will of the community"
should be apparent, and the idea is that the PMC will take that into
account when voting. The community will then have a clear indication
whether they have been listened to or not based on the outcome of the
vote (and the comments made during the vote because, after all, there
ould be legitimate reasons not to adhere to the community's vote, and
hose reasons should come out in discussion). But, at the end of the
day, who is invited to join is still decided by the PMC, as it is today.
I look forward to feedback. Thanks for listening!
Frank
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
